There won't be a response. If US deems NK can actually back up their rhetoric for the past week or so, they can easily wipe NK off the map in a preemptive strike before KJU even thinks about pushing the button
If any kind of war breaks out between NK and the USA it won't be because NK attacked first.
The USA will do what it has done best for 60+ years. Start wars, occupy other countries, build bases everywhere, and tell everyone in the world that we don't like what to do.
I LOVE my country. But this world police **** has to stop sometime.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
So, in response to threats on nuclear attack, we should stop the police thing?'cmon man, think!
Realistically, if our Intel so much as thinks the DPRK wants to do anything, it'll be a smoldering crater in a blink. I feel that if they keep blowing smoke, we should go ahead and do it regardless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
The US doesn't want to demolish North Korea because it'd be a humanitarian disaster for our friends and allies in South Korea and Japan (China has the same motivations, but they're less of an ally). Millions of starving refugees streaming across the border would be calamitous, and would be extremely damaging to our political and economic interests in the region.
There won't be a response. If US deems NK can actually back up their rhetoric for the past week or so, they can easily wipe NK off the map in a preemptive strike before KJU even thinks about pushing the button
We wouldn't preemptively strike that quickly. China would intervene, and quite frankly we wouldn't be able to handle that kind of war right now. I mean, we could, but it's more of we don't want to.
Can North Korea hit our bases in the Asia and Pacific area of operations? Absolutely. They can hit our allies in Japan, the Phillipines, Guam, Diego Garcia, and of course South Korea. But the problem is that they know that if they do, the United States will react. And the reaction will destroy their regime, and we will bring "democracy" to them.
It's why China has mobilized the PLA onto the border with North Korea: if **** happens they want to make sure they can react as well. China believes that a democratic North Korea would destabilize their own nation, and it very likely could. If North Korea got out of hand, China would react as well, though more of to prevent an American-sponsored government taking over than anything else.
Chances are China will threaten them with withdrawing support which will force North Korea to stop whining. Honestly this seems like the kid that throws a plate on the floor because he/she wants attention from mommy.
There won't be a response. If US deems NK can actually back up their rhetoric for the past week or so, they can easily wipe NK off the map in a preemptive strike before KJU even thinks about pushing the button
If NK is actually a threat, which I'm not entirely convinced it is. People will always make political claims to have weapons that are, simply, out of their reach.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
If NK is actually a threat, which I'm not entirely convinced it is.
Theres no question that they aren't really a threat directly to us in any significant manner, however they *are* a threat directly to our allies in South Korea.
If NK is actually a threat, which I'm not entirely convinced it is.
Theres no question that they aren't really a threat directly to us in any significant manner, however they *are* a threat directly to our allies in South Korea.
Which does not require us to act prematurely to remove said threat. Right now, even though the entire peninsula has been in a state of war since 1950, the area is relatively calm. This is the usual hype that happens every year with Foal Eagle, and sometimes Cobra Gold. Hell China used to complain about our maneuvers with Australia and England in the Pacific that happened annually, and Russia and China both have complained about the Seventh Fleet's presence in the Pacific.
It's all rhetoric right now. Will we see another Yeonpyeong Island shelling? Highly unlikely. Will there be another sinking like the ROKS Cheonan? Most likely not. North Korea has been very provocative in the past with these things as well as infiltrating naval commandos into South Korea, hijacking airliners (1970s), hijacking South Korean military ships, and hijacking South Korean fishermen. I mean honestly, all the provocation that has happened and South Korea has shown this much restraint?
We could not stop South Korea if they wanted to invade North Korea. ROK troops are some of the best in the world, and they harbor a deep-seated hatred of the North Koreans. There would be atrocities committed by both sides, just like in the Korean War and Vietnam conflict. Right now, the South Korean president has said that any provocation will have repercussions. The North believes that, hence the rhetoric and nothing else.
So, in response to threats on nuclear attack, we should stop the police thing?'cmon man, think!
I am thinking.
We have nukes, and we are the only ones who have ever nuked anyone else. Thanks to MAD, our nuclear threat is on all the time, we don't need to say it or posture, because it's an obvious and persistent threat.
The threat we pose to anyone and everyone we don't like is real and saturated. Ever think maybe some of the Anti-Americanism abroad is blowback? We can argue whether or not our causes are righteous, or good, but to think we haven't done anything wrong is just ridiculous.
Ever hear of the PROC?
We love to prop up ****ty dictators, so long as we can make them marionettes.
Realistically, if our Intel so much as thinks the DPRK wants to do anything, it'll be a smoldering crater in a blink. I feel that if they keep blowing smoke, we should go ahead and do it regardless.
I'd love to see the dynasty fall, and a new wave of change begin. The Chinese are propping them, while trying to get them to change to be more like them or Singapore. But it seems they're too stupid to follow through with proposed changes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
We have nukes, and we are the only ones who have ever nuked anyone else. Thanks to MAD, our nuclear threat is on all the time, we don't need to say it or posture, because it's an obvious and persistent threat.
The threat we pose to anyone and everyone we don't like is real and saturated. Ever think maybe some of the Anti-Americanism abroad is blowback? We can argue whether or not our causes are righteous, or good, but to think we haven't done anything wrong is just ridiculous.
Ever hear of the PROC?
We love to prop up ****ty dictators, so long as we can make them marionettes.
How does this relate to what he asked about? He said that why, in the face of direct, blatant threat from a volatile antagonistic power, should we stop pressuring this power to stop its unhealthy behavior? Yes, anti-Americanism in North Korea will be great, but I'm willing to allow that in order to prevent nuclear weapons being dropped on the US and her allies.
Realistically, if our Intel so much as thinks the DPRK wants to do anything, it'll be a smoldering crater in a blink. I feel that if they keep blowing smoke, we should go ahead and do it regardless.
This is wrong. Preemptive war is never a good thing, not simply from a moralistic standpoint, but a international diplomacy standpoint as well. We'd be the aggressors. North Korean rhetoric of a warmongering, oppressive United States would be proved correct. Horrible backlash, much more of a probability for foreign intervention, much more difficult to deal with the nation after the war has ended. And more importantly if the diplomatic option is still available why would we discount that?
We wouldn't preemptively strike that quickly. China would intervene,
No they wouldn't. China intervene for North Korea against the US? Ridiculous. They would gain absolutely nothing by doing so and alienate themselves globally.
You're really, really not if you think our policing the situation on North Korea, especially a potentially nuclear North Korea, is something you object to.
There is no logical indication that anything is going to happen in North Korea.
Showing the strength of the B2's probably wasn't the smartest move. The North Korean army knows well enough that they don't stand a chance. No need to show off.
Efforts should be done to defuse the situation and get back to the steady-state we've seen in the past 50-60 years.
Once the North-Koreans completely stop caring about their own people and the rest of the world starts to care, then it could get dangerous. But 'till then: 25 million starving in a large prison, and great opportunities for creative commercials.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These are the decks that I have constructed, and are ready to play:
01. Ankh Sligh to be exact.
There won't be a response. If US deems NK can actually back up their rhetoric for the past week or so, they can easily wipe NK off the map in a preemptive strike before KJU even thinks about pushing the button
If NK is actually a threat, which I'm not entirely convinced it is. People will always make political claims to have weapons that are, simply, out of their reach.
So, you think that this is another Saddam situation? I don't think that is entirely out of the question actually.
If it was, S. Korea will do everything in its power to verify and object to an undue war.
War is absolutely not in the interest of S. Korea. Nor is it in the interest of China and Japan, for that matter.
A destabilization and war in the region automatically leads to a economic collapse of the region, or at least serious damages to it. Which in turn leads to global economic hardship. N. Korea does have enough weapons to ensure that.
You're really, really not if you think our policing the situation on North Korea, especially a potentially nuclear North Korea, is something you object to.
If they attack someone, let those people defend themselves. If they can't, and it turns into some sort of cruel genocide or something, then we can get involved.
We both know their current weapons aren't actually a threat to the US.
We both know that the rhetoric is mostly hot air from KJU so little Prince can flex.
We both know that MAD will prevent the nuclear threat anyways.
Look, the USA and Russia hated each other, MAD kept us from going crazy.
NK will be the same.
Part of me believes, just maybe, MAYBE, if they get some Nuclear power plants (and yes, the potential for Nukes) that a booming economy created by a faux "Arms Race" would do more to free the people of NK than American military might.
If the North Koreans can get their hands on money and energy, watch.
Same thing shoulda/coulda happened with Russia, but the parties involved didn't let it go that way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If not, why shouldn't it? Economic damage is a very real thing. If not, why was the housing collapse of 08 such a great deal? It'll be a different type of economic collapse, but the ramifications will be about the same; though perhaps not in the same magnitude, depending on which industries bite the dust.
MAD is inherently flawed. It assumes every decision making body is rational and has something to lose. There is no shred of evidence that the N.K. ruling body is rational. Absolute dictatorships tend to be like that. As such, it is also the case that they may determine they have nothing to lose in a misjudgment.
MAD works when nuclear weaponry is in the hands of few that are bogged down by a large leadership. Contrary to what you may hear, Soviet Russia was not a dictatorship. That ended the moment Stalin died.
If the North is dumb enough to declare war, then we finally have an answer to the issues of North Korea. We go in, take out the government, liberate the country, the Koreas finally get reunited, and the Korean War finally comes to an end.
The problem is that's not what's going to happen. North Korea is just doing the same saber rattling it's always done. If it threatens war, and the threat of war actually becomes a potential threat, at least in the minds of the South Korean public, it will get attention. It's an angry child screaming to get what it wants.
Part of me believes, just maybe, MAYBE, if they get some Nuclear power plants (and yes, the potential for Nukes) that a booming economy created by a faux "Arms Race" would do more to free the people of NK than American military might.
Yeah, no. The government has full control of the money in that country. You don't get trickle down economics in a Communist dictatorship. This can also be seen in the aid packages we give corrupt governments. The people at the top pocket it all, the people at the bottom get nothing.
The government of North Korea has been content to allow its people to starve for quite some time. Do you honestly think a nuclear power plant would be used to benefit the people?
I hate to say this, but it does sound like we might need to destroy the North Korean government. And this isn't a Saddam Hussein issue - it wouldn't be a manufactured war.
They are threatening us with first strike nuclear attacks on major cities. We know they can't do that now - they probably can't reach us with their missiles and they probably can't detonate a nuclear warhead attached to their missiles in striking targets that their missiles CAN reach. They're obviously unstable. Sooner or later, they will have first strike nuclear capabilities, and sooner or later after that, some nutjob will make the decision to fire one at us.
I really do hate to say this, but eliminating their government through a (conventional) bombing campaign might literally be the only way to avoid a nuclear strike on the US at some time in the next few decades.
MAD is inherently flawed. It assumes every decision making body is rational and has something to lose. There is no shred of evidence that the N.K. ruling body is rational. Absolute dictatorships tend to be like that. As such, it is also the case that they may determine they have nothing to lose in a misjudgment.
MAD would be totally irrelevant in the case of North Korea, as it implies the fact that there would be something mutual about the destruction. If North Korea were to start a nuclear war, the destruction would be decidedly one sided (which is if anything, even more of a deterrent).
Quote from "Drawmeomg" »
Sooner or later, they will have first strike nuclear capabilities, and sooner or later after that, some nutjob will make the decision to fire one at us.
Eh, our anti-missile technology is also pretty decent, so I wouldn't be too worried about that. Additionally, while I understand what you meant, first strike nuclear attacks refer to attacks in which so many nuclear weapons are fired that the target's entire arsenal is wiped out to stunt any counterattack. If North Korea is ever in that sort of position of power over us, we are doomed regardless.
MAD is inherently flawed. It assumes every decision making body is rational and has something to lose. There is no shred of evidence that the N.K. ruling body is rational. Absolute dictatorships tend to be like that. As such, it is also the case that they may determine they have nothing to lose in a misjudgment.
MAD would be totally irrelevant in the case of North Korea, as it implies the fact that there would be something mutual about the destruction. If North Korea were to start a nuclear war, the destruction would be decidedly one sided (which is if anything, even more of a deterrent).
I am a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from S. Korea.
I do not want to see S. Korea nuked in retaliation for whatever the U.S. decides to do to N. Korea =(
But, ya, you're right. The only things going up in smoke in the case of a nuclear attack would be the Korean peninsula. The U.S. will suffer absolutely no damage on its mainland territories, and as such the principles of MAD doesn't even work.
I hate to say this, but it does sound like we might need to destroy the North Korean government. And this isn't a Saddam Hussein issue - it wouldn't be a manufactured war.
They are threatening us with first strike nuclear attacks on major cities. We know they can't do that now - they probably can't reach us with their missiles and they probably can't detonate a nuclear warhead attached to their missiles in striking targets that their missiles CAN reach. They're obviously unstable. Sooner or later, they will have first strike nuclear capabilities, and sooner or later after that, some nutjob will make the decision to fire one at us.
I really do hate to say this, but eliminating their government through a (conventional) bombing campaign might literally be the only way to avoid a nuclear strike on the US at some time in the next few decades.
We're missing the point here.
North Korea isn't getting the capability to even so much as attack Guam, let alone Hawaii, let alone the mainland, any time soon.
But they don't need to. All they need is the ability to reliably attack South Korea, and people willing to listen to them in order to placate them. Once they do that, they can just threaten all they like. This is about adding bite to their threats so people will give them what they want to calm them down. North Korea knows it's militarily a joke. They're doing whatever they can to become a credible threat so people will continue to listen to their threats and take them seriously.
Absolutely.
We've used economics against our enemies on numerous occasions.
It's usually our first attack.
If not, why shouldn't it? Economic damage is a very real thing. If not, why was the housing collapse of 08 such a great deal? It'll be a different type of economic collapse, but the ramifications will be about the same; though perhaps not in the same magnitude, depending on which industries bite the dust.
I agree.
MAD is inherently flawed. It assumes every decision making body is rational and has something to lose. There is no shred of evidence that the N.K. ruling body is rational. Absolute dictatorships tend to be like that. As such, it is also the case that they may determine they have nothing to lose in a misjudgment.
MAD isn't necessarily flawed. The difference is that now the genuine threats don't wear a uniform or salute a flag.
Even if they did, I have a feeling that enemies who do salute a flag might just pretend to be radical jihadists in the future, so that we aim our retribution elsewhere.
MAD works when nuclear weaponry is in the hands of few that are bogged down by a large leadership. Contrary to what you may hear, Soviet Russia was not a dictatorship. That ended the moment Stalin died.
I know it wasn't a dictatorship. Did I ever say it was?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Would our response change if their missile missed or was shot down?
How should we change our foreign policy to make this not happen in the future?
The USA will do what it has done best for 60+ years. Start wars, occupy other countries, build bases everywhere, and tell everyone in the world that we don't like what to do.
I LOVE my country. But this world police **** has to stop sometime.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Realistically, if our Intel so much as thinks the DPRK wants to do anything, it'll be a smoldering crater in a blink. I feel that if they keep blowing smoke, we should go ahead and do it regardless.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
We wouldn't preemptively strike that quickly. China would intervene, and quite frankly we wouldn't be able to handle that kind of war right now. I mean, we could, but it's more of we don't want to.
Can North Korea hit our bases in the Asia and Pacific area of operations? Absolutely. They can hit our allies in Japan, the Phillipines, Guam, Diego Garcia, and of course South Korea. But the problem is that they know that if they do, the United States will react. And the reaction will destroy their regime, and we will bring "democracy" to them.
It's why China has mobilized the PLA onto the border with North Korea: if **** happens they want to make sure they can react as well. China believes that a democratic North Korea would destabilize their own nation, and it very likely could. If North Korea got out of hand, China would react as well, though more of to prevent an American-sponsored government taking over than anything else.
If NK is actually a threat, which I'm not entirely convinced it is. People will always make political claims to have weapons that are, simply, out of their reach.
On phasing:
Theres no question that they aren't really a threat directly to us in any significant manner, however they *are* a threat directly to our allies in South Korea.
Which does not require us to act prematurely to remove said threat. Right now, even though the entire peninsula has been in a state of war since 1950, the area is relatively calm. This is the usual hype that happens every year with Foal Eagle, and sometimes Cobra Gold. Hell China used to complain about our maneuvers with Australia and England in the Pacific that happened annually, and Russia and China both have complained about the Seventh Fleet's presence in the Pacific.
It's all rhetoric right now. Will we see another Yeonpyeong Island shelling? Highly unlikely. Will there be another sinking like the ROKS Cheonan? Most likely not. North Korea has been very provocative in the past with these things as well as infiltrating naval commandos into South Korea, hijacking airliners (1970s), hijacking South Korean military ships, and hijacking South Korean fishermen. I mean honestly, all the provocation that has happened and South Korea has shown this much restraint?
We could not stop South Korea if they wanted to invade North Korea. ROK troops are some of the best in the world, and they harbor a deep-seated hatred of the North Koreans. There would be atrocities committed by both sides, just like in the Korean War and Vietnam conflict. Right now, the South Korean president has said that any provocation will have repercussions. The North believes that, hence the rhetoric and nothing else.
I am thinking.
We have nukes, and we are the only ones who have ever nuked anyone else. Thanks to MAD, our nuclear threat is on all the time, we don't need to say it or posture, because it's an obvious and persistent threat.
The threat we pose to anyone and everyone we don't like is real and saturated. Ever think maybe some of the Anti-Americanism abroad is blowback? We can argue whether or not our causes are righteous, or good, but to think we haven't done anything wrong is just ridiculous.
Ever hear of the PROC?
We love to prop up ****ty dictators, so long as we can make them marionettes.
I rest my case.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
How does this relate to what he asked about? He said that why, in the face of direct, blatant threat from a volatile antagonistic power, should we stop pressuring this power to stop its unhealthy behavior? Yes, anti-Americanism in North Korea will be great, but I'm willing to allow that in order to prevent nuclear weapons being dropped on the US and her allies.
This is wrong. Preemptive war is never a good thing, not simply from a moralistic standpoint, but a international diplomacy standpoint as well. We'd be the aggressors. North Korean rhetoric of a warmongering, oppressive United States would be proved correct. Horrible backlash, much more of a probability for foreign intervention, much more difficult to deal with the nation after the war has ended. And more importantly if the diplomatic option is still available why would we discount that?
Finish what was started in the 1950s. That war never ended anyway.
No they wouldn't. China intervene for North Korea against the US? Ridiculous. They would gain absolutely nothing by doing so and alienate themselves globally.
It's not premature if they bomb you.
Of course we could. We could remove our support for them. South Korea isn't going up against North Korea without our support.
You're really, really not if you think our policing the situation on North Korea, especially a potentially nuclear North Korea, is something you object to.
Showing the strength of the B2's probably wasn't the smartest move. The North Korean army knows well enough that they don't stand a chance. No need to show off.
Efforts should be done to defuse the situation and get back to the steady-state we've seen in the past 50-60 years.
Once the North-Koreans completely stop caring about their own people and the rest of the world starts to care, then it could get dangerous. But 'till then: 25 million starving in a large prison, and great opportunities for creative commercials.
These are the decks that I have constructed, and are ready to play:
01. Ankh Sligh to be exact.
So, you think that this is another Saddam situation? I don't think that is entirely out of the question actually.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
If it was, S. Korea will do everything in its power to verify and object to an undue war.
War is absolutely not in the interest of S. Korea. Nor is it in the interest of China and Japan, for that matter.
A destabilization and war in the region automatically leads to a economic collapse of the region, or at least serious damages to it. Which in turn leads to global economic hardship. N. Korea does have enough weapons to ensure that.
If they attack someone, let those people defend themselves. If they can't, and it turns into some sort of cruel genocide or something, then we can get involved.
We both know their current weapons aren't actually a threat to the US.
We both know that the rhetoric is mostly hot air from KJU so little Prince can flex.
We both know that MAD will prevent the nuclear threat anyways.
Look, the USA and Russia hated each other, MAD kept us from going crazy.
NK will be the same.
Part of me believes, just maybe, MAYBE, if they get some Nuclear power plants (and yes, the potential for Nukes) that a booming economy created by a faux "Arms Race" would do more to free the people of NK than American military might.
If the North Koreans can get their hands on money and energy, watch.
Same thing shoulda/coulda happened with Russia, but the parties involved didn't let it go that way.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Does economic damage count as threat?
If not, why shouldn't it? Economic damage is a very real thing. If not, why was the housing collapse of 08 such a great deal? It'll be a different type of economic collapse, but the ramifications will be about the same; though perhaps not in the same magnitude, depending on which industries bite the dust.
MAD is inherently flawed. It assumes every decision making body is rational and has something to lose. There is no shred of evidence that the N.K. ruling body is rational. Absolute dictatorships tend to be like that. As such, it is also the case that they may determine they have nothing to lose in a misjudgment.
MAD works when nuclear weaponry is in the hands of few that are bogged down by a large leadership. Contrary to what you may hear, Soviet Russia was not a dictatorship. That ended the moment Stalin died.
If the North is dumb enough to declare war, then we finally have an answer to the issues of North Korea. We go in, take out the government, liberate the country, the Koreas finally get reunited, and the Korean War finally comes to an end.
The problem is that's not what's going to happen. North Korea is just doing the same saber rattling it's always done. If it threatens war, and the threat of war actually becomes a potential threat, at least in the minds of the South Korean public, it will get attention. It's an angry child screaming to get what it wants.
I think this article has a good perspective on it.
Yeah, no. The government has full control of the money in that country. You don't get trickle down economics in a Communist dictatorship. This can also be seen in the aid packages we give corrupt governments. The people at the top pocket it all, the people at the bottom get nothing.
The government of North Korea has been content to allow its people to starve for quite some time. Do you honestly think a nuclear power plant would be used to benefit the people?
They are threatening us with first strike nuclear attacks on major cities. We know they can't do that now - they probably can't reach us with their missiles and they probably can't detonate a nuclear warhead attached to their missiles in striking targets that their missiles CAN reach. They're obviously unstable. Sooner or later, they will have first strike nuclear capabilities, and sooner or later after that, some nutjob will make the decision to fire one at us.
I really do hate to say this, but eliminating their government through a (conventional) bombing campaign might literally be the only way to avoid a nuclear strike on the US at some time in the next few decades.
MAD would be totally irrelevant in the case of North Korea, as it implies the fact that there would be something mutual about the destruction. If North Korea were to start a nuclear war, the destruction would be decidedly one sided (which is if anything, even more of a deterrent).
Eh, our anti-missile technology is also pretty decent, so I wouldn't be too worried about that. Additionally, while I understand what you meant, first strike nuclear attacks refer to attacks in which so many nuclear weapons are fired that the target's entire arsenal is wiped out to stunt any counterattack. If North Korea is ever in that sort of position of power over us, we are doomed regardless.
I am a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from S. Korea.
I do not want to see S. Korea nuked in retaliation for whatever the U.S. decides to do to N. Korea =(
But, ya, you're right. The only things going up in smoke in the case of a nuclear attack would be the Korean peninsula. The U.S. will suffer absolutely no damage on its mainland territories, and as such the principles of MAD doesn't even work.
We're missing the point here.
North Korea isn't getting the capability to even so much as attack Guam, let alone Hawaii, let alone the mainland, any time soon.
But they don't need to. All they need is the ability to reliably attack South Korea, and people willing to listen to them in order to placate them. Once they do that, they can just threaten all they like. This is about adding bite to their threats so people will give them what they want to calm them down. North Korea knows it's militarily a joke. They're doing whatever they can to become a credible threat so people will continue to listen to their threats and take them seriously.
Absolutely.
We've used economics against our enemies on numerous occasions.
It's usually our first attack.
I agree.
MAD isn't necessarily flawed. The difference is that now the genuine threats don't wear a uniform or salute a flag.
Even if they did, I have a feeling that enemies who do salute a flag might just pretend to be radical jihadists in the future, so that we aim our retribution elsewhere.
I know it wasn't a dictatorship. Did I ever say it was?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein